It is now widely known that veterans that receive VA checks via protective payees are to be stripped of their gun rights. There are many reasons that a veteran may have someone receiving their paychecks. The mere inability to handle financial affairs does not indicate that veterans are a threat to themselves or others andContinue reading “Veterans Administration: Obama Administration’s Strategy for Stripping Vets of Gun Rights?”
Behind many of President Obama’s recent forays into the international arena lies the issue of whether the United States is to retain its sovereign status or merge into something that is new. Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court have already decided cases by promoting theories that meld U.S. law with foreign law. Are international norms a prism through which U.S. Constitutional law should be interpreted?
MEDELLIN VS TEXAS was a 2007 death penalty case that decided whether the State of Texas must give a psychopath a new trial. Its sordid origins trace to 1993, when José Medellín, a Mexican national, murdered two Houston teenagers. He was sentenced to death by a Texas jury, but his lawyers argued on appeal that he hadn’t had access to Mexico’s consulate before he confessed to his crimes.
Mr. Medellin’s claim was that a violation of the 1963 VIENNA CONVENTION had occurred; diplomats are supposed to be notified when their nationals are arrested. Mexican authorities sued the U.S. in the International Court of Justice at The Hague. The ICJ ruled in Mexico’s favor, ordering states to give Medellín and some 51 other nationals new hearings. The question before the Supreme Court was whether such international dictates must be enforced by sovereign state courts.
Justice John Roberts, writing for the 6-3 majority, ruled that the ICJ finding was not binding because the Vienna Convention is a diplomatic compact that was never intended to automatically create new individual rights enforceable domestically by international bodies. Thus, Texas’s violation of diplomatic protocols called for a diplomatic remedy.
Treaty provisions must be in accord with the plain meaning of the Constitution as it is written, not as some would have them to be. This distinction establishes a fire wall between international and domestic law. The day may come when Washington State’s Attorney General has to defend the protections afforded by our state Constitution against treaties negotiated by folks in Washington, DC.
Washingtonians may just be a bunch of cowboys but so far we are sticking to our guns! Despite the opinions of some law professors and elitists that believe a treaty supersedes the U.S. and Washington state constitutions, we should continue to uphold our Washington State Constitution even if we need to do so in the face of new treaties and/or Medellín being reversed by SCOTUS at some time in the future.
MEDELLÍN also disposed of the Bush Administration’s claims of Presidential power. The Bush Administration had attempted to calm the diplomatic world by directing states to comply with the ICJ ruling in a 2005 executive order. The Court ruled that the President’s power is limited by the Constitution.
For many years, elitist lawyers and politicians have been claiming that the Constitution is always changing based on the needs of each generation. This is not rule of law but an argument for tyranny which would interlineate international norms in place of Constitutional norms.
The crowd that expressed outrage against Bush’s claims of executive power can’t wait to turn greater executive powers over to international politicians who have already banned many freedoms- including freedom of speech and religion- in Europe, Australia and Canada, to name a few! Be vigilant and watch for the propaganda blitz that is coming. If MEDELLÍN is reversed, UN mandates squelching free speech, gun rights and even the ability to practice your religion may follow.
“A wise man attacks the city of the mighty
and pulls down the stronghold in which they trust.”
As the U.S. dollar gets ready to free-fall into oblivion, President Obama has presided over a radical remolding of the American economy during which the reality of the U.S. Government seizing corporations seems imminent. One of the reasons that the U.S. quarantined Castro’s Cuba after the Cuban Revolution was because Cuba nationalized assets belonging to U.S. citizens. Nevertheless, we may see the “takings” clause of the 5th Amendment shredded along with many of our other dearly purchased Constitutional rights.
Now we have seen men like Chas. Freeman, Jr. that shill for China and attack Israel nominated for important intelligence posts. Almost every cabinet level office that has been filled is staffed by henchmen of the gun-control lobby and we should keep our eyes on Van Jones, a former street agitator known for harassing the police in the San Francisco Bay Area. The group called ColorOfChange, formerly affiliated with Van Jones, has been busy calling for boycotts of Glen Beck because Beck referred to President Obama as a racist!
Jones himself stated that when he was jailed in San Francisco for participating in a protest against police brutality:
“I met all these young radical people of color — I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, ‘This is what I need to be a part of.’ I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary. I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th. By August, I was a communist.”
In March, 2009, a number of concerned Americans, including the San Francisco Police Officer’s Association, began calling attention to the evidence implicating Obama cronies Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn in the 1970 murder of a San Francisco police officer. In light of what has transpired since inauguration day, it is worth taking another look at what some of us already knew about Obama during the “mainstream” campaign while the media turned a blind eye:
During the campaign, Obama resigned membership in his racist anti-American Chicagoland church (to which he belonged for over twenty years). Obama had previously called for unity and an end to the politics of division while including his anti-American pastor on his campaign committee.
There were efforts to distance himself from a long time friend, a Catholic priest for whom Obama had gone to bat in the U.S. Senate and the Illinois legislature. Sen. Obama won hundreds of thousands of taxpayer funding in order to fuel Father Pfleger’s ministry in Chicago. Father Pfleger accepted such largesse even while proclaiming that America is the worst sin in God’s eyes.
“In addition to giving $20,000 of his own money to Jeremiah Wright, as a state senator Obama directed $225,000 of the Illinois taxpayers’ money for programs run by Father Pfleger. In the U.S. Senate, Obama earmarked $100,000 in federal tax money for Father Pfleger’s work. Giving someone more than 300 grand is not just some tenuous, coincidental association.”
Barack Obama had a long record of associating with anti-American radicals including William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn who were local activists in Hyde Park (the stronghold in Chicago’s South Side where the University of Chicago is located and one of the Midwest’s strongest left-wing bastions.
Dohrn and Ayers are better known nationally as two of the most notorious — and unrepentant — figures from the violent fringe of the 1960s anti-war movement, according to Ben Smith at http://www.politico.com.
Obama was at Bill Ayers’ home when Alice Palmer stepped down from running for office and identified Obama as her successor in the race. The visit by Obama to their home — part of a campaign courtship — reflects more extensive interaction than has been previously reported, according to Smith.
Ayers and Dohrn were violent bombers and members of the violent SDS Weatherman faction that were wanted by the federal government for planning to kill members of the U.S. Armed Forces and other crimes.
“Politicians of an earlier generation had their own relationships with figures now far to their left. Hillary Rodham Clinton, for instance, interned at a radical San Francisco law firm while in law school.
Prof. Dohrn and Dr. Ayers disappeared in 1970, after a bomb — designed to kill army officers in New Jersey — accidentally destroyed a Greenwich Village townhouse, and turned themselves into authorities in 1980. Ayers was never prosecuted for his involvement with the 25 bombings the Weather Underground claimed; charges were dropped because of improper FBI surveillance. Dohrn received a relatively light sentence for a terrorist when she refused to testify about what she knew.
Both have written and spoken at length about their pasts, and today he is an advocate for progressive education and a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago; she’s an associate professor of law at Northwestern University.
But — unlike some other fringe figures of the era — they’re also flatly unrepentant about the bombings they committed in the name of ending the war, defending them on the grounds that they killed no one, except, accidentally, their own members. But is it true to claim that the two only killed other radicals when the bombs (constructed to use against members of the U.S. Armed Forces) blew up by accident:
“The Society of Former Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation authored a 1979 pamphlet on the WUO that reported, ‘On October 18, 1974, Larry Grathwohl, a former member of the WUO, testified before a US Senate Subcommittee that Bill Ayers, a WUO leader, had told him that Bernardine Dohrn, another WUO leader, had to plan, develop and carry out the bombing of the police station in San Francisco. Ayers told Grathwohl the bomb was placed on the window ledge and he described the bomb that was used to the extent of saying what kind of shrapnel was used in it.’
Ayers was never convicted because of a legal technicality- the FBI surveilled and/or wiretapped Ayers illegally. However, Dohrn, who is married to Ayers, was jailed for less than a year for refusing to testify before a grand jury investigating as to other Weather Underground members’ robbery of a Brinks truck, in which a guard and two New York State Troopers were killed.
“I don’t regret setting bombs; I feel we didn’t do enough,” Ayers told the New York Times in 2001.”
Paradoxically, like many leftists that would justify violence in order to accomplish socialist political objectives, Sen. Obama has a soft spot in his heart for gun control. Even while he was telling rural voters during the campaign that he believed the Second Amendment protected individual rights, the Senator from Illinois reassured the liberal elite that he considered such rhetoric to be worthy of only derision and ridicule- window dressing for illiterate masses that cling to religion and guns.. See http://www.politico.com.
Sen. Obama’s church, Trinity United Church of Christ, is not a mainstream church but one that is linked to “liberation theology”. Sen. Obama indicated that his former pastor, Rev. Wright, won Obama to “Christianity” and has been a mentor and spiritual guide to the Senator. The theology of the Reverend is a racist stew of Liberation Theology and black separatism. Liberation Theology is a radical Marxist-Leninist reinterpretation of the Bible that has taken root in many different denominations.
Sen. Obama’s pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Jr, not only has a militant past but travels with Louis Farrakhan, an Anti-Semite that believes whites, the U.S. and Zionist Jews are the axis of evil. Rev. Wright also has recently supported Hamas on his church webpages; Hamas is a recognized terrorist organization that has killed many innocent Israelis and Americans.
The United Church of Christ, Rev. Wright’s denomination, is being investigated by the Internal Revenue Service for a speech Obama delivered at a church conference in June in Hartford, Conn. The Wall Street Journal suggested that the South Side church may be violating its tax-exempt status by endorsing a candidate.
The New York Times presented a picture of Rev. Wright, a man that uses obscenities to get his points across, as vehemently opposed to America’s role in the world and Wright has made comments that seem to indicate we got what we had coming on September 11th.
The following excerpts from an article by By Ed Lasky show how Obama may pose a threat to Israeli and American security:
Senator Barack Obama has become the rarest of politicians: a man who has seemingly come out of nowhere to ascend to the top rank of Democratic Presidential candidates.
Obama’s spiritual mentor
Given the anti-Semitism that is sadly so often associated with other leaders and groups that have emphasized black separatism and empowerment (think Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton) perhaps some qualms might be warranted, particularly given some of the actions and statements of the Church’s minister.
Pastor Wright is a believer in “liberation theology,” which makes the liberation of the oppressed a paramount virtue. The language of liberation all too often veers off into anti-Jewish rants. For example, one of the founders of the movement, Gustavo Gutierrez, has stated that the infidelities of the Jewish people made the Old Covenant [between the Jews and God] invalid.” Pastor Wright is also a supporter of Louis Farrakhan, and in 1984 traveled with him to visit Col. Muammar al-Gadaffi, an archenemy of Israel’s and America and a firm supporter of terror groups.
But what were his views before he ran for and was elected to the Presidency?
One other aspect of Obama’s support that was cause for some discomfort is the fact that he had the seal of approval from Jimmy Carter and billionaire George Soros-both influential and powerful people who take an unseemly glee in trying to undermine the American-Israel alliance. Soros has been funding powerful 527 groups, donating to candidates and others-such as Wes Clark-who are severe critics of Israel…
Furthermore, Obama stated that he supported a resumption of aid to the Palestinian government… the international community has laid down requirements for such aid to continue: not only must the Palestinians renounce terrorism, but they also must stop it…
Note: President Obama has now pledged millions of dollars in aid to Hamas, even though Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization by the U.S. Government.
Similarly, his use of the discredited term “cycle of violence” Obama displayed an approach that equates Palestinian terror attacks with Israeli defense actions. If Obama were true to his rhetoric of peace and the need to come together, why didn’t he speak out about Palestinian textbooks that teach children to hate and that celebrate martyrdom? (Even Hillary Clinton has done so).
No wonder Barack Obama was and is so popular among denizens of Hollywood…
The fact is that Barack Obama had a record on which he never had to run because the press was virtually silent as to serious questions raised by his record:
The Wall Street Journal provided the following in relation to how Obama came to hold office in Illinois:
In real life, it did not matter what Mr. Obama said on the stump or whether South Side voters were impressed. What mattered was that, beginning on Jan. 2, 1996, his campaigners began challenging thousands of petition signatures the other candidates in the race had submitted in order to appear on the ballot. Thus would Mr. Obama win his state Senate seat, months before a single vote was cast.
According to the Chicago Tribune, Mr. Obama’s petition challengers reported to him nightly on their progress as they disqualified his opponents’ signatures on various technical grounds — all legitimate from the perspective of law. One local newspaper, Chicago Weekend, reported that “[s]ome of the problems include printing registered voters name [sic] instead of writing, a female voter got married after she registered to vote and signed her maiden name, registered voters signed the petitions but don’t live in the 13th district.”
One of the candidates would speculate that his signature-gatherers, working at a per-signature pay rate, may have cheated him by signing many of the petitions themselves, making them easy to disqualify.
In the end, Mr. Obama disqualified all four opponents — including the incumbent state senator, Alice Palmer, and three minor candidates. Ms. Palmer, a former ally of Mr. Obama, had gathered 1,580 signatures, more than twice the 757 required to appear on the ballot. A minor, perennial candidate had gathered 1,899 signatures, suggesting the Obama team invested much time working even against him.
The act of throwing an incumbent off the ballot in such a fashion does not fit neatly into the narrative of a public-spirited reformer who seeks to make people less cynical about politics.
Commitment to old-style politics, exemplified by repeated endorsements of Chicago’s machine politicians, characterizes much of the President’s political career:
In the 2006 election, reformers from both parties attempted to end the corruption in Chicago’s Cook County government. They probably would have succeeded, too, had Mr. Obama taken their side. Liberals and conservatives came together and nearly ousted Cook County Board President John Stroger, the machine boss whom court papers credibly accuse of illegally using the county payroll to maintain his own standing army of political cronies, contributors and campaigners.
The since-deceased Stroger’s self-serving mismanagement of county government is still the subject of federal investigations and arbitration claims. Stroger was known for trying repeatedly to raise taxes to fund his political machine, even as basic government services were neglected in favor of high-paying county jobs for his political soldiers.
When liberals and conservatives worked together to clean up Cook County’s government, they were displaying precisely the postpartisan interest in the common good that Mr. Obama extols today. And Mr. Obama, by working against them, helped keep Chicago politics dirty. He refused to endorse the progressive reformer, Forrest Claypool, who came within seven points of defeating Stroger in the primary.
After the primary, when Stroger’s son Todd replaced him on the ballot under controversial circumstances, a good-government Republican named Tony Peraica attracted the same kind of bipartisan support from reformers in the November election. But Mr. Obama endorsed the young heir to the machine, calling him — to the absolute horror of Chicago liberals — a “good, progressive Democrat.”
Mayor Richard M. Daley — who would receive Mr. Obama’s endorsement in 2007 shortly after several of his top aides and appointees had received prison sentences for their corrupt operation of Chicago’s city government — was invested in the Stroger machine’s survival. So was every alderman and county commissioner who uses the county payroll to support political hangers-on. So was Mr. Obama’s friend and donor, Tony Rezko, who is now in federal prison awaiting sentencing after being convicted in June of 16 felony corruption charges. Rezko had served as John Stroger’s finance chairman and raised $150,000 for him (Stroger put Rezko’s wife on the county payroll).
See “Obama Played by Chicago Rules” by DAVID FREDDOSO; August 20, 2008; Page A19. Mr. Freddoso is the author of the just-published “The Case Against Barack Obama” (Regnery).
The other big Obama story that some segments of the media have done a fairly job at following:
Senator Barack Obama admitted that he had made repeated lapses of judgment in dealing with an indicted Chicago real estate developer, Antoin Rezko, and acknowledged that Mr. Rezko had raised more money for his political campaigns than he had previously disclosed.
The aspect of the Rezko story that has not been fully reported has to do with Obama’s possible Syrian ties to Rezko and at least one Rezko affiliate who contributed to Obama’s campaigns. The fact that Rezko and at least one of his associates were from Syria was not in and of itself sinister but we should have been informed about the possibility of a “Syrian connection” because there is a history of Democrats allowing themselves to be used by foreign powers in return for campaign contributions. According to Human Events:
Companion Security was headed by a former Chicago policeman with a troubled history, Daniel T. Frawley, in partnership with Mr. Rezko and in association with Daniel Mahru, the lawyer for the original contract and Mr. Rezko’s former business partner. In April 2006, Mr. Frawley entered negotiations with Governor Rod Blagojevich’s staff to lease a military facility in Illinois to be a training camp. In August 2006, Mr. Frawley started negotiations with Mr. Obama’s U.S. Senate staff to complete the contract.
The discussions with Mr. Obama’s staff continued over many months, including e-mails and conferences with an Obama staffer, Seamus Ahern. Questions raised by this contact go to the issue of whether or not Mr. Obama ever favored Mr. Rezko’s commercial ties. Mr. Obama has said often that he performed no favors for Mr. Rezko.